appendix a - az. appendix a_breakthrough virtual learning...education service provider, including...

APPENDIX A 1. Recommendation Report

2. Scoring Rubric

ARIZONA STATE BOARD FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT 2019

NOVEMBER 4, 2019

New Charter Application for

Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions

Submitted by

Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions

Report Summary

Recommendation: Approve Applicant Name: Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions Proposed School Name: Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions Grades Served Year 1:

9-12 Grades Served Year 2:

9-12 Grades Served Year 3:

9-12

Location: Online

Mission Statement:

By providing an innovative, alternative option for at-risk students, we Inspire Hope! By reigniting our students’ hope for a brighter future and providing a positive learning environment with professionals who support each student’s educational goals, we meet each student’s individual learning needs to maximize opportunities for success. Vision: Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions provides an alternative, safe and positive learning environment which offers an individualized learning platform for each at-risk students while providing work and study opportunities relevant to each student’s future success. Fundamental Core Values/Beliefs: We provide a safe and positive place for your success. We build a plan just for you. We listen-your story matters We grow to serve our communities

Section Scores A substantively complete application package meets the following scoring requirements:

• No evaluation criteria receive a score of falls below the expectations; and • No more than one evaluation area in each section is scored as approaching; and • 95 percent of the evaluation areas in each plan (educational, operational, business) score

at the meets level.

Preliminary TRP Scores Revised TRP Scores

Any falls below the expectations ratings? Yes No More than one evaluation area in each section scored approaches? Yes Yes

Section Score Section Score

Educational Plan Score ≥ 95%? No 34.78% Yes 100% Operational Plan Score ≥ 95%? No 52.70% No 88.46% Business Plan Score ≥ 95%? No 76.36% No 90.91%

In-Person Interview Summary The Applicant team present for the interview included:

● Maxim Shafik, the sole member of the Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions corporate board;

● Brook Drooger, the authorized representative of Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions;

● Three members of the school governing body: Dr. TImothy Wood, Travis Gostinger, and Robert Giordano; and

● Doug McNeil, representative from Blended Learning Solutions, LLC, the education service provider the Applicant intends to contract with.

It should be noted that the authorized representative and three governing board members are also affiliated with the education service provider Blended Learning Solutions, LLC.

The majority of answers to questions from the TRP were provided by the members affiliated with the education service provider, including questions directed to the sole member of the Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions board.

In summary, the Applicant team present consisted of only one member from the Applicant entity Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions, and five from the education service provider Blended Learning Solutions, LLC. Typically representation from the education service provider is limited to one person. However, in this case, the authorized representative and three members of the school governing body members are also affiliated with the education service provider. These individuals provided responses in their capacity as members of the education service provider.

Prior to the interview, the TRP identified two major areas of concern to be addressed by the Applicant. The first was a lack of a clearly identified target population as well as no identified location for learning centers to serve online students. The second was the lack of knowledge and experience, by both the Applicant and education service provider, of the educational environment in Arizona, with at-risk students, and with a hybrid/online educational model. Both are new entities with no track record in education. Individual members have significant experience in education, and with existing entities in Michigan. However, this team has no demonstrable experience for the TRP to discern a capacity to improve pupil achievement for at-risk students in Arizona. Further, the TRP had questions regarding the selection of Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions as the applicant when the vast majority of relevant experience resided within the education service provider, Blended Learning Solutions, LLC (“BLS”).

Target Population

In order for the TRP to have confidence that the Applicant team has capacity to implement their proposed school model, the Applicant team must be able to clearly identify and demonstrate an understanding of its target population. In the written application, the Applicant had not clearly identified a target population and location for the school. The narrative states that “Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions is seeking to offer a statewide, blended charter school in Arizona” (A.2 Target Population, page 1). Based on technical assistance comments provided for the initial application indicating that the TRP felt the application did not provide sufficient detail in identifying the target population, the revised application emphasized the word “statewide” by underlining it, as seen in the excerpt quoted above. The TRP understood this as a clear statement that the Applicant intends to serve students across the state. The Applicant also stated that it intends to serve “students who have not found success within the traditional public-school system” (A.2 Target Population, page 1). Based on these statements the TRP understood that the Applicant intended to serve an at-risk population of students across the state.

The revised narrative in section C.1 Facilities Acquisition stated that the first 2 centers “will be established in the highest concentrated areas of students” (page 1). Although facilities were identified (pages 12-15), the narrative made it clear that these facilities were “not an indication of location, but rather a sampling of the types of buildings that would match [the Applicant’s] center model criteria” (C.1 Facilities Acquisition, page 11).

Based on section A.2 Target Population and C.1 Facilities Acquisition, the TRP concluded that the Applicant intended to serve at-risk students in Arizona through an online model and would identify a specific location for centers based on the highest demand. The Target Population narrative identifies Maricopa county as having the highest number of students enrolled in online schools and “other counties, with the exception of Pima, have very few students engaged in online programs” (A.2 Target Population, page 5). The TRP concluded that the Applicant was identifying areas of high need in counties other than Maricopa and Pima, and that these counties were potential locations for centers if they demonstrated high demand. The TRP was concerned that the applicant would wait until enrollment began to identify locations with the highest demand in order to determine center locations. This left the TRP with no clearly identifiable location or target population to be served by the centers.

At the beginning of the interview the Applicant was asked why this out of state applicant team had selected Arizona (Capacity Interview 11:45). The Applicant stated that over the past two years the team had met with the charter association, senior leaders on the governor’s economic development team, people in growing industries, and mayors. Later in the interview the TRP asked the Applicant, why, if after meeting with these people, no specific location had been identified for centers (Capacity Interview 19:15). The Applicant responded that it had three locations that were available right now, but may not be available in May. The Applicant identified these locations as downtown Phoenix not far from the airport, Buckeye south of I-10, and Peoria (Capacity Interview 19:45). The Applicant team stated that they have spoken with some parents and business leaders in Peoria. The Applicant stated that it has spent two years developing support in these areas (21:20). The Applicant also stated that centers will be located where there are clusters of students (21:37).

The application clearly states that the Applicant intends to serve students statewide. The TRP asked a follow-up question regarding this. “If there are young people that have a need in another part of the state, this is a massive state, so how would you address that?”(Capacity Interview, 22:51). The Applicant responded that it makes sense to start with centers in Maricopa County. The intention is to branch out in four or five years. Centers help students with larger needs, and the centers can provide support. The centers will be mutually supportive of each other. So the plan is to start in one region and do very well there and then branch out from there (Capacity Interview 23:00).

The Applicant was able to provide additional clarity to the issues of target population and location of centers. It appears that three specific communities have been identified, but the precise locations of centers in these communities have yet to be determined. Given the two years of collaborative work with these communities that the Applicant described, it is concerning that there is no progress toward confirmed locations for centers. The TRP does understand the Applicant’s desire to locate centers where there are high concentrations of students. Section C.2 Marketing and Enrollment appears to indicate that center locations will be determined prior to February 2020 (page 1). In the

Recruiting Students section of the Enrollment table, the item “Publish Open Enrollment Notice on website, social media and at center locations” has a target date of February 2020. Given the described two years of work with the identified communities, and a plan for selecting a center location in February 2020, the TRP was comforted that the Applicant has a more focused plan for establishing centers than was described in the revised application package.

Applicant and Education Service Provider The Applicant entity currently consists of one corporate board member. However the education service provider, which is also a new entity, consists of principals who “have collectively over 100 years of charter school leadership and implementation experience” (B.3.1 page 1). It was unclear to the TRP why, of the two new corporations, the Applicant entity is the one with the least amount of experience among its members.

The TRP directed a question to Max Shafik, the sole board member of Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions, regarding the decision for this contracted structure. Travis Gostinger answered and requested that Doug help answer. In response the Applicant stated that the corporate board of BVLS will be expanded to five, with three of those positions filled by Arizona residents (Capacity Interview 48:28). Further, the applicant stated that the contracted structure was selected to provide an extra layer of transparency and accountability (Capacity Interview 49:43). The Applicant stated that it consulted with three separate lawyers, the department of education, and the charter association regarding this structure.

As a follow-up the TRP asked why BLS was selected as the education service provider when one of the members of BLS is currently affiliated with a charter management organization as well as another education service provider that currently supports schools in Michigan. The Applicant stated that the Applicant team members that are affiliated with BLS are not associated with either of those two entities (Capacity Interview 51:55), and that those teams did not have the capacity to bring the educational model to Arizona (Capacity Interview 52:48).

Continuing in this discussion the TRP inquired as to why, if BLS has the capacity, there is a contracted structure in which BLS is not the applicant entity? (Capacity Interview 55:40). The Applicant again stated that they felt that this arrangement brought more transparency (Capacity Interview 56:00). The TRP asked for further clarification regarding how this constructed structure provides more transparency. The Applicant stated that they have a philosophy of transparency and that ultimately all decisions will be made by the corporate board (Capacity Interview 56:34). The Applicant further clarified that the corporate board would select the curriculum, approve the technology package, and approve the leases to the facilities (Capacity Interview 57:30). Additionally, the Applicant stated that all contracts would be available for review by members of the public upon request (Capacity Interview 58:00)

Based on the Applicant responses, the TRP has heard the justifications for this structure, yet felt they did not receive a clear response connecting the justifications and decisions made by the Applicant.

After the completion of the interview with the Applicant, the TRP is comfortable that the Applicant team has the capacity to implement the educational model as described in the revised application. The TRP has no additional clarity regarding the contracted structure with the education service

provider. However, these concerns do not relate to the Applicant team’s ability to implement the proposed plan.

TRP Qualitative Analysis Summary The TRP recommends that the application for Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions be approved with some reservations. The TRP has some concerns that there are currently operating charter schools in Arizona that have a comparable model and instructional design; however, it is clear to the TRP that this is a model that can work in Arizona. Areas of concern were addressed during the interview, providing the TRP some comfort that this Applicant team has the capacity to implement this model. The TRP has concerns that the market in the Phoenix area may be unable to support centers due to the large number of students already participating in online instruction and blended learning within Maricopa County.

The Applicant provided a detailed Educational Plan that met the Board’s criteria. The model is comparable to several existing charter schools providing an online program targeted to at-risk students. The Applicant’s narrative described essential components to a successful model for an at-risk population: establishing connections and relationships with students, individualized plans for students, and flexibility in the school schedule. An Academic Systems Plan was provided that detailed the systems and processes for start-up and ongoing maintenance of the educational model.

Although the Operational plan did not meet the criteria, this was due to a lack of clarity regarding the educational service provider with whom the Applicant intends to contract. The TRP’s questions in this area were answered during the interview. The education service provider has no experience and is unable to demonstrate success with a comparable student population. However, the individual members of the education service provider have relevant experience and demonstrated an understanding of the needs of the at-risk population the school intends to serve.

The Business plan did not meet the Board’s criteria. Due to a lack of identified locations for centers and concerns regarding staffing, the TRP was concerned about the Applicant’s ability to begin school on the proposed August 10, 2020 start date. The TRP addressed these deficiencies with the Applicant during the interview.

Educational Plan

Preliminary TRP Scores Revised TRP Scores Educational Plan Score ≥ 95%? No Yes Number of “Falls Below” ratings 2 0 Number of “Approaches” ratings 51 0

Plan Summary The Applicant intends to provide a blended learning model focusing on at-risk high school students across the state of Arizona. Centers will be located in areas of high concentrations of students. The first centers are planned to be located in Maricopa County. Currently the Applicant is considering locations in Phoenix, Buckeye, and Peoria.

Beginning in August 2020 the school plans to serve approximately 200 students in grades 9-12. Although it has a traditional August to May calendar, due to its hybrid model (that would include an

approved Arizona Online Instruction designation), and focus on at-risk students, the school has a flexible instructional schedule. Students will be able to access courses 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Students will be able to attend solely online, or at one of two centers. Additional centers will be added as enrollment and demand is anticipated to increase in subsequent years. Two additional centers are planned for in the second year of operations, and a fifth to be added in year three.

The Applicant has indicated that anticipates using Edgenuity as a content provider for instruction. A custom-designed program will be used to track and monitor student attendance, progress in courses, and facilitate communication between school staff and students. The Applicant also described how instruction will be adapted for ELL and Special Education. In addition to a traditional formative and summative assessment model, individual student growth targets will be used to monitor student progress.

Beyond the classroom, students are assigned a Relationship Manager that is responsible for becoming a trusted mentor that knows the academic challenges of the students, as well as family dynamic, and social-emotional needs.

Analysis The educational plan meets the criteria for approval because the Applicant provided a plan that described an educational model that accounted for identified needs of the at-risk population it intends to serve. The educational plan contains key components that are standard practice for a school serving a population that is “at-risk of dropping and those who have already dropped out” (Target Population A.2 page 6). Although centers will only be open during the typical hours of a school day, 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, students will have access to their curriculum content and lessons 24/7. The Applicant provided sample student schedules to demonstrate the flexibility of the educational model and how students in various situations will be able to fit school into their daily routine.

During the interview the Applicant stressed the importance of the Relationship Manager position as the key to student engagement and relationship building. It is clear the Applicant understands the challenges of the population they intend to serve and have incorporated best practices for serving the at-risk population into its educational plan.

As previously stated, the applicant intends to use Edgenuity as a curriculum provider. During the interview, the Applicant stated that Edgenuity is providing the teachers for the courses and the two teachers that will be hired by the Applicant are to provide additional support for students at the center and virtually for students online (Capacity Interview 1:13:20). Although this addressed the TRP’s concerns about adequate staffing to provide instruction for all four content areas (Math, English, Science, Social Studies) across grades 9-12, this plan does require the two teachers hired in year one to be able to provide support in all of these courses and grade levels.

Operational Plan

Preliminary TRP Scores Revised TRP Scores Operational Plan Score ≥ 95%? No No Number of “Falls Below” ratings 2 0 Number of “Approaches” ratings 10 3

Plan Summary The corporate board of Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions currently consists of one member. The Applicant intends to increase this to five, with three of the members being Arizona residents (Capacity Interview 48:28). The corporate board is separate from the school governing body. The three current school governing body members are affiliated with Blended Learning Solutions, LLC ,the education service provider the Applicant intends to contract with. The application package states that the governing body will consist of between three and seven members, and that recruitment of additional governing body members is occurring (B.2 School Governing Body page 1). The governing body members report to and are appointed by the corporate board (B.2 Page 4).

The BVLS governing body is responsible for setting the strategic vision for the school, as well as the goals to accomplish the mission. Annually the governing body will review, amend, and approve the annual budget. In addition to ensuring compliance with school policies the governing board is also responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal requirements (B.2 page 2).

The corporate board controls and manages all of the affairs and property of the corporation. Other than selecting and appointing the school director, specific duties are responsibilities are not delineated in the bylaws (2nd Restated Bylaws, pages 1-2, 6). During the interview the Applicant stated that all financial decisions will be made by the corporate board (Capacity Interview 56:34).

The Applicant is contracting with Blended Learning Solutions, LLC which will consult, advise, assist, and support in the management and administration, accounting, and educational program. Final decisions regarding the operation of the school will be made by the corporate board or the school governing body (B.3.1 page 17).

The applicant intends to contract services for: ● Special Education ● Janitorial ● Site Maintenance ● Legal Counsel ● Financial auditing ● IT support

The Applicant provided quotes from Arizona vendors for all services except for IT, which was quoted from a Michigan based vendor (B.3.2 pages 1-3).

Analysis The operational plan approaches the criteria for approval because the Applicant was unable to provide evidence that the education service provider it intends to contract with has success implementing the program of instruction and improving pupil achievement in a comparable

population. Although some individual members have success, this entity has no experience of its own. This is discussed in greater detail in the In-Person Interview Summary above.

The Applicant provided an organizational chart that clearly delineated the reporting structure within the organization. During the In-Person Interview, the TRP voiced its concern regarding the low numbers of teachers to provide instruction for the anticipated number of students in year one. The Applicant clarified that the curriculum provider, Edgenuity, also provided the certified teachers for the courses. It is unclear to the TRP how the Applicant will ensure that the teachers provided by the curriculum provider are prepared to work with the at-risk students it intends to serve.

The Applicant’s staffing plan does provide additional support through the teachers and Relationship Managers at each site. Further, during the interview the Applicant described its PULSE system that monitors and tracks student interactions (Capacity Interview 41:34). This gave the TRP some comfort that student engagement and academic progress is monitored.

Business Plan

Preliminary TRP Scores Revised TRP Scores Business Plan Score ≥ 95%? No No Number of “Falls Below” ratings 0 0 Number of “Approaches” ratings 11 3

Plan Summary Proposed Location:

The Applicant is proposing a statewide online program. However, the Applicant provided a sampling of the types of buildings that match its center model criteria. Specific locations were not identified. During the In-Person Interview the Applicant indicated that it was considering downtown Phoenix not far from the airport, Buckeye south of I-10, and Peoria as possible locations for centers.

Facilities Requirements:

2,100 square feet of open space with 35-50 workstations, a 240 square foot office, and a server/utility room approximately 150 square feet. Additionally, a 200 square foot break room and two bathrooms.

Budget Summary Startup Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Projected Enrollment: N/A 200 500 800 Total Revenue: $750,000 $1,644,517.78 $4,030,230.80 $5,906,052.53 Total Expenditures: $712,117.23 $1,635,899.20 $3,996,910.55 $5,845,901.51 Ending Balance: $37,882.77 $8,618.58 $33,320.25 $60,151.03

The Applicant has not identified a specific location for its two centers that are planned to open during the first year of operation. The Applicant has identified three potential locations, and will make a final determination based on enrollment demand. The marketing plan (C.2 Marketing and Student Enrollment, page 1) indicates that enrollment notices will be published on the school’s website, on social media, and at center locations. Based on this, it appears that locations will be identified prior to February 2020. It is not clear to the TRP how center locations, which will be “established in the highest concentrated areas of students” (C. 1 Facilities Acquisition, page 1), will

be identified in February 2020 when enrollment of students has not yet occurred.

The Three-Year Budget indicates an enrollment of 200 students in Year One and increases by 300 students in each subsequent year. The budget is based on 100% of the projected enrollment. The budget has a very small balance in year 1. The balance increases by roughly $25,000 each year.

The Applicant provided a marketing plan that focused heavily on online advertising. This is a logical approach to locating students for an on-line school. The initial marketing budget during the start-up period is $34,000. This increases to $105,406 by year three.

The Applicant provided a recruitment plan that was differentiated for categories of staff:

● High School Leader ● School Staff ● Non-Instructional Staff

Additionally the plan included tasks, steps, and target dates for processes that pertain to Human Resources. This demonstrated an awareness of the full scope of work needed to secure needed staff (C.3 Personnel page 19).

Five days of professional development is provided prior to the start of the school year. Topics address all key elements for staff, including:

● Creating community at centers ● Academic, social, and emotional interventions ● Building relationships with students ● Safety and security at centers

It is clear that the Applicant is aware of the variety of skills center staff will need to support the at-risk population they intend to serve. Ongoing professional development is built into the school calendar.

Analysis The business plan approaches the criteria for approval because the Applicant failed to demonstrate how it would adequately staff centers to provide sufficient instruction in all content areas for all grade levels. During the interview the Applicant provided additional clarification regarding staffing. The curriculum provider, Edgenuity, will be providing teachers for each course and the teachers at centers will provide support for students.

Although the Applicant’s responses during the interview provided additional clarification, the TRP still had concerns about the Applicant’s reliance on an outside vendor for teachers to provide instruction due to the at-risk population the Applicant intends to serve. While the recruiting and professional development plan for the Applicant’s staff clearly demonstrates an awareness of the needs of an at-risk population, the Applicant has no assurances that these same qualities will be present in the teachers provided by Edgenuity.

Further the small balance available at the end of each of the first three years provides little room for

contingencies. The Applicant addressed this during the interview (see In-Person Interview Summary); however, the TRP still has concerns regarding the viability of the budget if enrollment is lower than expected.

Evidence of Capacity Applicant Summary

Name Role Attended Interview?

Maxim Shafik Corporate Board Y Brook Drooger Authorized Representative/Education Service

Provider Y

Robert Giordano Governing Body/Education Service Provider Y Travis Gostinger Governing Body/ Education Service Provider Y Timothy Wood Governing Body/ Education Service Provider Y Douglas McNeil Education Service Provider Y

Analysis Overall, the proposed plan contains similarities to current charter operators serving students in Arizona with varying degrees of success. For this reason the TRP believes that this model can be an effective approach to educating at-risk students in Arizona.

The capacity resides mostly in the education service provider, and individually, the team members have relevant experience. Without a track record in Arizona, it is challenging for the TRP to make a clear determination of this team’s capacity to effectively implement the plan serving at-risk students in an online model. As a whole, the team possesses the skills and knowledge to implement the plan described in the application. However, that experience is in another state, and the team was able to identify that they do not have experience with the English Language Learner and Native American populations found in Arizona. Given that the applicant intends to serve at-risk students statewide, it is clear that these challenging populations are likely to be students that enroll.

In its market analysis, the Applicant identified fifteen alternative online schools in Maricopa County. Since learning that the proposed locations are in Maricopa County, the TRP is unable to state with confidence that the market will support two centers in the proposed location. It is not the TRP’s role to determine market viability, but the TRP has concerns that the proposed locations exist within a saturated market and was disappointed that a charter operator committed to serving students statewide did not choose to serve the higher need areas of the state.

Applicant: Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions

Proposed School Name: Breakthrough Virtual Learning Solutions

PART A: Educational Plan (A.1-A.6) PART B: Operational Plan (B.1-B.3) Requirements for Substantive

Completeness: Points for A.1-A.4: 29.5 Total Score: 34.5No evaluation area receives a score of Falls Below the Criteria Met Points for A.5: 20.0 Percentage: 88.46% Total Possible Points for A.1-A.4 29.5

No more than one evaluation area in each section is scored as Approaches the Criteria Not Met Points for A.6: 10 Total Possible Points for A.5 20

95% of the evaluation areas in each Plan (Educational Plan, Operational Plan, and Business Plan) score at the “Meets” level Not Met Total Score: 59.5 PART C: Business Plan (C.1-C-5) Total Possible Points for A.6 K-2 N/A

The Application is Substantively Incomplete Percentage: 100.00% Total Score: 50 Total Possible Points for A.6 3-5 N/A

Percentage: 90.91% Total Possible Points for A.6 6-8 N/A

Total Possible Points for A.6 9-12 20

Total Possible Points for B.1-B.3 39

Total Possible Points for C.1-C.5 55

REVISED APPLICATION RATINGS

Part A Educational Plan

A.1 Educational Philosophy Rating Scoring Technical Assistance / Comments

A.1a

Provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the school’s philosophical approach, describing how students will learn and what the teacher’s role in that learning will be. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.1bIncorporate the elements fundamental to the school’s program of instruction. (2 points)

Meets 2Meets the Criteria

A.1cInclude a mission statement that is clear, cohesive, comprehensive and has a focus on outcomes rather than inputs. (2 points)


A.1dArticulate how the school’s educational philosophy is aligned with the mission statement of the proposed school. (1 point)


A.1e

Present a rationale that clearly supports how the selected approach improves pupil achievement in the target population, including research and/or experience. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.1fEnsure the Mission Statement on the Target Population Page is consistent with the narrative. Meets

Meets the Criteria

A.1 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

A.1 Total-Approaches 0 8

A.1 Total-Meets 6

A.2 Target Population Rating Scoring

Technical Assistance / Comments

A.2a

Identify the target population the response should demonstrate a clear understanding of the students and community the school intends to serve, including current levels of academic performance of the surrounding schools. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.2b

Present an explanation of how the implementation of the program of instruction described in Section A.3 meets the identified needs of the target population including improving pupil achievement and providing educational choice. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.2c

Describe the class size and teacher-student ratios and clearly explain how these address the identified needs of the target population for improved pupil achievement and educational choice. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.2d

Ensure the target population provided on the Target Population page in the online application wizard is consistent with the narrative in this section.

Meets 2



A.2 Total-Meets 4

A.3 Program of Instruction Rating Scoring


A.3a

Describe the curriculum for the core academic content areas, which clearly demonstrates alignment to the Educational Philosophy and Arizona State Standards. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.3b

Demonstrate a clear understanding of methods of instruction key to the program of instruction, including formative assessment strategies, which clearly demonstrate alignment to the curriculum, assessments, and Educational Philosophy. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

A.3c

Present a rationale for the selected curriculum, methods of instruction and assessment that support improving pupil achievement in the target population. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.3dExplain how the Program of Instruction will result in achieving the outcomes described in the school’s mission. (1 point)


A.3eEnsure the Program of Instruction is consistent with the Academic Systems Plan. Meets

Meets the Criteria



A.3 Total-Meets 5

A.3.1 Mastery and Promotion Rating Scoring


A.3.1a

Present clear criteria and conditions for promotion from one level to the next, to include the level of proficiency that students must obtain to demonstrate mastery of academic core content. (1 point)

N/A

Not applicable

A.3.1b

Describe a comprehensive viable and adequate process the school will use to determine grade level promotion and retention consistent with A.R.S. §15-701. (1 point)

N/A

Not applicable

A.3.1cPresent a rationale for the selected criteria and conditions that guide the grade level promotion decisions. (1 point)

N/ANot applicable

A.3.1d Describe the process for student retention. (1 point) N/A Not applicable

A.3.1eEnsure consistency with Area II of the Academic Systems Plan. N/A

Not applicable

A.3.1 Total-Falls Far Below 0

A.3.1 Total-Approaches 0

A.3.1 Total-Meets 0

A.3.2 Course Offerings and Graduation Requirements Rating Scoring

Technical Assistance/ Comments

A.3.2aIdentify graduation requirements for the school that will meet A.R.S. §15-701.01. (1 point)


A.3.2b

Describe a comprehensive viable and adequate process that includes clear criteria and conditions for awarding course credit. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.3.2c

Provide a rationale for the selected criteria and conditions for awarding course credit and how they represent student capacity to pass the end of course State assessments. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.3.2.d

Provide a menu of course offerings which include course titles and brief descriptions of classes consistent with State requirements and that clearly demonstrate alignment to the Program of Instruction. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.3.2.eEnsure consistency with the program of instruction and alignment with the Business Plan as presented in the application package.

MeetsMeets the Criteria

A.3.2 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

A.3.2 Total-Approaches 0 4

A.3.2 Total-Meets 5

A.4 School Calendar and Weekly Schedule Rating


A.4a

Provide the length of the school day (approximate start and dismissal times) and how many minutes per day will be designated for each core academic subject that clearly demonstrate compliance with hours/minutes of instruction for each grade level served, for the proposed school calendar (standard or extended) pursuant to A.R.S. §15-901. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.4b

Ensure the weekly schedule demonstrates compliance with A.R.S. §15-118 and current Move on When Reading Requirements, as defined by the Arizona Department of Education. (.5 points)

N/A

Not Applicable

A.4c

Include a school calendar with the total number of days the proposed school will be in session, early-release days, scheduled holidays, teacher work-days/professional development, and additional days off. (.5 points)

Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

A.4dSchool calendar clearly demonstrates compliance with A.R.S. §15-341.01. (1 point)


A.4e

Provide a rationale for the selected weekly schedule that clearly supports improving pupil achievement in the target population. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

A.4f

Identify professional development opportunities consistent with the information provided in Area IV of the Academic Systems Plan. Meets

Meets the Criteria


A.4 Total-Approaches 0 3.5

A.4 Total-Meets 5

Overall Consistency of Education Plan

Consistency among all components of the Educational Plan (Sections A.1-A.6)See page 18 of the Application Instructions for more information. (2 points)

Meets 2

Part A: Education Plan Total-Falls Far Below0

Part A: Education Plan Total-Approaches0

Part A: Education Plan Total-Meets25

Education Plan A.1-A.4 Total Score

29.5


Part A.5 Academic Systems Plan

A.5 Academic Systems Plan Rating Scoring Technical Assistance / Comments

A.5aProvide predicted target figures for Percent Passing in Mathematics and Reading aligned with target population information provided in Section A.2 (1 point)


A.5bProvide a clear description of the basis for setting baseline figures that aligns with Section A.2. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

Score for A.5 a and A.5 b:

2.00

A.5 Academic SystemArea I: Curriculum

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address each of the following elements of a comprehensive curriculum system (Area I): The curriculum area of the ASP is worth 4 points.

Meets

Meets the Criteria in Area I

A.5c-I(i)

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address: i. Adoption of curriculum aligned to Arizona State Standards:• adopting new and supplemental curriculum,• gathering curriculum options,• evaluating proposed curriculum programs and materials, and• verifying the curriculum is aligned to Arizona State Standards.

Meets 1

Meets the Action Steps

A.5c-I(ii)

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address: ii. Implementation of curriculum to include:• integrating curriculum into instruction consistently, and • implementing the curriculum with fidelity to the design of the curriculum and program of instruction.

Meets 1


A.5c-I(iii)

iii. Evaluation of curriculum to include:• determining if curriculum is effective based on criteria set by the school, • ensuring that the curriculum allows students to meet the standards,• verifying whether curriculum is aligned to student needs, and • identifying if a curricular gap is preventing the students from mastering a standard.

Meets 1


A.5c-I(iv)

iv. Revision of curriculum to include:• making revisions to existing curriculum, and• replacing/supplementing existing curriculum through adoption of new curriculum.

Meets .5


A.5c-I(v)

v. Adaptation to address the curriculum needs of subgroup populations by:• ensuring that implemented curriculum and supplemental curriculum meet the identified needs of students in subgroups.

Meets .5


Score for Curriculum Area:

4.00

A.5 Academic SystemArea II: Assessment

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address each of the following elements of a comprehensive assessment system to assess studnet performance (Area II): The assessment area of the ASP is worth 4 points.

Meets

Meets the Criteria in Area II

A.5a-II(i)

i. Developing the assessment syste: • creating a data collection system that involves both formative and summative assessments, • ensuring the assessment system is aligned to the curriculum, and • the instructional methodology/program.

Meets 1

Meets the Actions Steps

A.5a-II(ii)

ii. Analyzing assessment data: • students are performing, • whether instructional methodology and curriculum are meeting the needs of all students, and • what adjustments are made when methodology and/or curriculum are not meeting student needs.

Meets 1


A.5c-II(iii)

iii. Adapted to meet the needs of subgroups: • evaluating the instruction delivered to each separate subgroup to ensure that necessary adjustments are made regularly for each group

Meets 1

Meets the Action Step

A.5d-II(iv)

iv. Year to Year comparison: • determine what data will be collected to allow for valid and reliable comparisons of student growth and proficiency • determine the analysis completed during the year to allow for valid and reliable comparisons from year to year.

Meets 1


Score for Assessment

Area:4.00

A.5 Academic System Area III: Monitoring

Instruction

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address each of the following elements of a comprehensive system for monitoring instruction (Area III): The monitoring instruction area of the ASP is worth 4 points.

Meets

Meets the Criteria in Area III

A.5e-III(i)

i. Monitoring instruction:• gathering evidence to ensure that the classroom instruction is aligned with standards,• identifying if the instruction is taking place in the manner prescribed by curriculum planning documents,• verifying if the instruction allows students to effectively master state standards, and• ensuring that adjustments are made to the curriculum for students in subgroup populations.

Meets 1


A.5e-III(ii)

ii. Evaluating instructional practices:• integrating curriculum into instruction consistently, and• implementing the curriculum with fidelity to the design of the curriculum and program of instruction,• gathering evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices for all instructional staff, • using criteria to clearly measure instructional quality, and • disaggregating teacher evaluation data to identify strengths, weaknesses and needs of individual teachers.

Meets 1


A.5e-III(iii) iii. Adapted to meet the needs of subgroups: • evaluating the instruction delivered to each separate subgroup to ensure that necessary adjustments are made regularly for each group.

Meets 1Meets the Action Steps

A.5e-III(iv)

iv. Providing feedback that develops the quality of teaching and standards integration:• analyzing the information gathered in the teacher evaluation process in order to provide feedback specific to each individual staff member on their quality of teaching and standards integration.

Meets 1


Score for Monitoring

Instruction Area:4.00

A.5 Academic System Area IV: Professional

Development

Provide sufficiently detailed and implementable action steps that address each of the following elements of a comprehensive professional development system (Area IV): The professional development area of the ASP is worth 3 points. Meets

Meets the Criteria in Area IV

A.5f-IV(i)

i. Developing the professional development plan:• determining what PD topics will be covered throughout the year and• deciding what data and analysis will be used to make those decisions.

Meets 1


A.5f-IV(ii)

ii. Supporting high quality implementation:• supporting high quality implementation of PD strategies by providing support and• allocating resources such as time, space, and the necessary material items required for implementation.

Meets 1


A.5f-IV(iii)

iii. Monitoring implementation and follow-up:• monitoring that the strategies learned in professional development are implemented, and• following up with instructional staff regarding levels of implementation. Meets .5

Meets the Actions Steps

A.5f-IV(iv)

iv. Adapted to meet the needs of subgroups:• determining what topics are addressed during PD to meet the needs of subgroups

Meets .5


Score for Professional

Development Area:

3.00

A.5gIdentify the frequency and/or timing sufficient for the timely completion of the action steps as part of a comprehensive system in each Area. (1 point)


A.5hIdentify concrete documentation that will serve as evidence to demonstrate implementation of all components of each action step. (1 point)


A.5iProvide adequate personnel resources responsible for completing action steps that support the Areas. Identify the title/role/positions of the individual(s). (1 point)


A.5jBe consistent with all sections of the application package.

MeetsMeets the Criteria

Score for A.5g through A.5i: 3.00

A.5 Total-Falls Far Below 0

A.5 Total-Approaches 0

A.5 Total-Meets 27

Total Score for ASP: 20.0


Part A.6.9-12 Instructional Analysis

A.6.9-12 9-12 Grade Span Instructional Analysis Rating Scoring Technical Assistance / Comments

A.6.9-12a

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 1. Learning Target: Identify the objectives students must know that align with the Required Standard and can be assessed to demonstrate mastery of the Required Standard. (.5 points)

Meets the Criteria in Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science.

Score for Reading Meets .5Score for Writing Meets .5Score for Mathematics Meets .5Score for Science Meets .5

Total Score for A.6.9-12a 2.00

A.6.9-12b

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 2. Prior Knowledge: List the knowledge/skills that are required prior to meeting learning targets. Describe how prior knowledge will be used to introduce the learning targets. (.25 points)

Meets the Criteria Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science.

Score for Reading Meets .25Score for Writing Meets .25Score for Mathematics Meets .25Score for Science Meets .25

Total Score for A.6.9-12b 1.00

A.6.9-12c

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 3. Instructional Plan: Describe the process for presenting new information, necessary for students to meet the learning targets. Describe the instructional strategies used to lead students to meet each of the learning targets identified. (1 point)


Score for Reading Meets 1Score for Writing Meets 1Score for Mathematics Meets 1Score for Science Meets 1

Total Score for A.6.9-12c 4.00

A.6.9-12d

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 4. Instruction: Describe the activity/tasks students will complete to meet the learning targets. Identify components of the program of instruction and educational philosophy that are incorporated into instruction. (1 point)



Total Score for A.6.9-12d 4.00

A.6.9-12e

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 5. Formative Assessment: List criteria for determining whether students have met each of the learning targets. (1 point)



Total Score for A.6.9-12e 4.00

A.6.9-12f

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 6. Summative Assessment: Describe how students will demonstrate mastery of the Required Standard. Describe the criteria used to determine whether a student has mastered the Required Standard. (1 point)



Total Score for A.6.9-12f 4.00

A.6.9-12g

Provide a complete response based on the Required Standard for Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science. 7. Remediation: Describe the processes available to provide support to students that do not meet the learning targets. (.25 points)


Score for Reading Meets .25Score for Writing Meets .25

Score for Mathematics Meets .25Score for Science Meets .25

Total Score for A.6.9-12g 1.00

A.6.9-12Total-Falls Far Below 0

A.6.9-12Total-Approaches 0

A.6.9-12Total-Meets 28

Total Score for 9-12 Instructional

Analysis:20.00


Part B Operational Plan

B.1 Applicant Entity Rating Scoring Technical Assistance / Comments

B.1a

Describe in detail the Applicant’s history, including its establishment, evolution, and how operating a charter school became part of its mission as documented in the minutes or resolution of intent to apply for a charter school. (2 points). Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.1b

Provide a clear and cohesive organizational chart and narrative that clearly delineates the roles, responsibilities, and reporting structure for each position on the chart. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.1cClearly describe any subsidiary relationship of the Applicant entity to another organization. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

B.1d

Identify any current or prior charter operation by the Applicant and any Principal, including the authorizer, timeframe, and nature of involvement. (1 point)


B.1eDiscuss the role of each Principal in the entity. Clearly describe the qualifications of each Principal to support the Educational Plan, Operational Plan, and/or Business Plan. (1 point)


B.1fBe consistent with the background information documents provided for each individual. (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

B.1gEnsure consistency with legal documentation establishing entity, including number of directors required by the Bylaws. (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

B.1hEnsure consistency with information listed on Title Page and the contents of the application package. (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

B.1 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

B.1 Total-Approaches 0 8.50

B.1 Total-Meets 8

B.2 Governing Body Rating Scoring


B.2aClearly identify the specific roles and the responsibilities of the school governing body per A.R.S. §15-183 (E)(8). If applicable, describe any role the school governing body will have beyond the statutory minimum. (2 points)


B.2b

Indicate if the corporate board for the Applicant will also act as the school governing body, or if and when a school governing body separate from the corporate board will be established. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.2cDescribe how the composition of the school governing body will have the capacity to fulfill its requirements and supports the school’s mission. (2 points)


B.2d

Describe a clear and appropriate process for selecting initial governing body members and filling vacancies. The description should indicate a process that will result in the selection of a qualified governing body with the ability to fulfill its responsibilities. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.2e Be consistent with all sections of the application package. (.5 points) Meets .5 Meets the Criteria



B.2 Total-Meets 5

B.3 Management and Operation Rating Scoring


B.3aProvide an organizational chart and clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of each position on the chart as it pertains to administering the day-to-day activities of the school. (2 points)


B.3b

Present a comprehensive viable and adequate operational plan that includes oversight responsibilities related to instruction and operational services. Plan must identify the number of administrative personnel (each year for the first three years) and their oversight responsibilities related to the following areas: Instruction,Curriculum and Assessment (mandated State testing), Staff Development, Financial Management, Contracted Services, Personnel, Grants Management, and Student Information System (SIS).(2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.3cIdentify critical skills or experience that will indicate the minimum qualification for fulfillment of those responsibilities. (2 points)


B.3d Be consistent with all sections of the application package. (.5 points) Meets .5 Meets the Criteria



B.3 Total-Meets 4

B.3.1 Education Service Providers Rating Scoring


B.3.1a

Present a detailed explanation of how contracting with or having a governance relationship with the ESP allows the Applicant to fulfill its mission and implement its program of instruction, and meets the identified needs of the target population including improving pupil achievement.(2 points)

Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in: Providing a detailed explanation of how contracting with or having a governance relationship with the ESP allows the Applicant to fulfill its mission and implement its program of instruction.

Providing a detailed explanation of how contracting with or having a governance relationship with the ESP meets the needs of the target population including improving pupil achievement.

Due to the ESP having not managed any other schools evlautors were unable to identify a rationale for the selection of the ESP. Specifically a lack of experience of the ESP with a similar program of instrution or similar target population.

B.3.1b

Provide relevant performance data for other schools that the ESP has managed that demonstrates the ESP’s success in implementing the program of instruction and improving pupil achievement in a comparable population. (2 points)

Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in: Providing relevant data for other schools that the ESP has managed that demonstrates the ESP's success in implementing a program of instruction and improving pupil achievement in a comparable population. Due to the ESP having not managed any other schools no data was available.

B.3.1c

Provide a clear description of the services to be provided by the ESP consistent with the service agreement. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.3.1d

(CMOs only) Ensure that the relationship between the ESP and Applicant entity described in the narrative is clearly consistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in Section B.1. (.5 points) N/A

Not Applicable

B.3.1e

(EMOs only) Provide an explanation for the reasons for contracting with an ESP, in general, and this provider in particular, and how the ESP will further the school’s mission and program. (2 points) Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

B.3.1f

(EMOs only) Describe the Applicant’s performance expectations for the ESP consistent with the service agreement, and a viable and adequate plan for how the Applicant will evaluate that performance. (1.5 points)

Meets 1.5

Meets the Criteria

B.3.1g

(EMOs only) Describe the ESP’s roles and responsibilities in relation to the Applicant consistent with the service agreement. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

B.3.1h

Ensure ESP-related costs are described in the Budget Assumptions and included in the Start-Up and Three-Year Operational Budget as appropriate. (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

B.3.1 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

B.3.1 Total-Approaches 2 7.00

B.3.1 Total-Meets 5

B.3.2 Contracted Services Rating Scoring


B.3.2aDelineate all areas (e.g., business management, legal, IT, special education, curriculum development/alignment, etc.) for which the Applicant plans to contract with a service provider. (1 point)


B.3.2bIdentify the minimum professional qualifications and/or experience expected of those to be retained to perform each listed contracted service. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

B.3.2c Provide specific sources for costs of each listed contracted service. (1 point) Meets 1 Meets the Criteria

B.3.2.dDescribe how the costs associated with each listed contracted service are viable and adequate for the target population identified in A.2. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

B.3.2.eEnsure costs are described in the Budget Assumptions and included in the Start-Up and Three-Year Operational Budget as appropriate. (.5 points) Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in:Ensuring costs for maintenance are described in the Budget Assumptions.

Ensuring costs for maintenance/custodial are Included in the Start-Up and/or Three-Year Operational Budget.B.3.2 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

B.3.2 Total-Approaches 1 4.00

B.3.2 Total-Meets 4

Part B: Operational Plan Total-Falls Far Below0

Part B: Operational Plan Total-Approaches3

Part B: Operational Plan Total-Meets26

Total Scoring 34.50


Part C Business Plan

C.1 Facilities Acquisition Rating Scoring Technical Assistance / Comments

C.1aIdentify a timeframe for securing an appropriate facility consistent with the Target Start Date identified on the Target Population Page. (2 points)


C.1b

Identify and describe the facility necessary to implement the program. Include square footage, number of classrooms, layout of space (floor plan), and location that will accommodate the number of anticipated students and class size as identified throughout the application package. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.1cEnsure the Layout of Space is consistent with the narrative (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

C.1dEnsure costs as described in the narrative are accounted for in the Start-Up and Three-Year Operational Budgets and fully described in the Assumptions. (1 point)


C.1eBe consistent with all sections of the application package (.5 points) Meets .5

Meets the Criteria

C.1f(i)

For a planned location only: Identify and provide documentation on available facilities within the target market that will allow implementation of the program of instruction and support the student population and class size described in the application package. (2 points)

Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in:Providing documentation on available facilities with the target market. Specifically, example facilities were provided, however the applicant did not demonstrate that comparable facilities would be available in locations other than Phoenix.

C.1f(ii)

For an already acquired facility, purchased land or proposed build only: Identify costs associated with securing the facility and ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including obtaining educational occupancy. (2 points)

N/A

N/A

C.1f(iii)

For an already acquired facility, purchased land or proposed build only: Describe any financial arrangements that have been made for securing the facility. (2 points) N/A

N/A

C.1 Total-Falls Far Below 0 Total Score:

C.1 Total-Approaches 1 6

C.1 Total-Meets 5

C.2 Marketing and Student Enrollment Rating Scoring


C.2a

Provide a viable and adequate timeframe for recruiting students consistent with the start-up date of the proposed school identified on the Target Population Page. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

C.2bProvide a clear and comprehensive plan that is viable and adequate to support the number of students included in the Three-Year Operational Budget. (2 points)


C.2cProvide clear and specific sources for costs associated with the marketing plan. (1 point)


C.2d

Describe how the costs associated with the marketing plan are viable and adequate to attract the projected student population identified in Year 1 of the Three-Year Operational Budget. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.2e

Ensure costs as described in the narrative are accounted for in the Start-Up and Three-Year Operational Budgets and fully described in the Budget Assumptions. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

C.2fDescribe the proposed fair and equitable admission requirements. List and describe all documents that will be required in the enrollment packet. (2 points)


C.2g

Describe enrollment procedures that are compliant with A.R.S. §15-184, including the timeframe, process used if capacity is insufficient to enroll all students, and documentation collected for student registration once a student is admitted to the school. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

C.2h

Identify the enrollment targets, including the minimum and maximum projected enrollment at each grade level that will be set, and how these targets were determined. (1 point)

Meets 1

Meets the Criteria

C.2iEnsure all processes, procedures, and documentation used in the enrollment process are compliant with all applicable state and federal statutes, Rules, and policies. (1 point)




C.2 Total-Meets 9

C.3 Personnel Rating Scoring


C.3aProvide a clear and comprehensive staffing plan, including the minimum professional qualifications and/or experience for each position. (2 points)


C.3b

Describe how the staffing plan is adequate for the effective implementation of the program of instruction and operation of the charter school as described, including:• the grades and number of students to be served in each of the first three years of operation, and• the number of each type of instructional and non-instructional personnel each year.(2 points)

Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in:Describing how the staffing plan is adequate for the effective implementation of the program of instruction and operation of the charter school as described. Specifically how clerical services will be provided during the first year of operation.

Describing the grades and number of students to be served in each of the first three years of operation, including the number of each type of instructional and non-instructional personnel each year. Specifically how the student to teacher ratio will be maintained based on enrollment targets and the number of instructional personnel each year.

C.3cDescribe a compensation and benefits plan that supports personnel qualifications and experience required to support the program of instruction. (1 point)


C.3dProvide a detailed plan to recruit, hire, and train instructional staff consistent with the start-up of the school. (2 points) Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.3e

Describe how the process for recruiting initial instructional staff and the identified salaries in the Three-Year Operational Budget result in a staff qualified to effectively implement the program of instruction. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.3f

Ensure all salaries and Employee Related Expenses (ERE) described in the narrative are accounted for in the Start-Up and Three-Year Operational Budgets and fully described in the Budget Assumptions. (1 point) Meets 1



C.3 Total-Meets 5

C.4 Start-Up Budget Rating Scoring


C.4aList only sources of start-up revenue fully supported by Verifiable Proof of Secured Funds documentation. (2 points) Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.4bList expenditures to cover the start-up plans described in the application package. (2 points)


C.4cDemonstrate through the assumptions that the amounts listed are viable and adequate. (2 points) Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.4dEnsure revenues cover expenditures. (2 points) Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.4eEnsure that timeframes described in all sections of the application package are consistent with timeframes listed on the Start-Up Budget. (1 point)


C.4fBe consistent with all sections of the application package. (1 point) Meets 1

Meets the Criteria



C.4 Total-Meets 6

C.5 Three-Year Operational Budget Rating Scoring


C.5aList expenditures to cover the Educational Plan, Operational Plan, and Business Plan described in the application package. (2 points)


C.5bEnsure state equalization detailed in the Projected Revenue Calculator is consistent with the Target Population and the student count by grade level. (2 points)


C.5c

If student count add-ons are used in determining projected revenue: Provide an adequate rationale for using the student count add-on levels in the Projected Revenue Calculator in the assumptions that is consistent with the target population described in Section A.2. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.5dProvide an adequate rationale for the percent of full enrollment used as the basis of the budget for Year 1 consistent with Section C.2. (2 points)


C.5e

Demonstrate through the assumptions that the amounts listed are viable and adequate. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.5f

If operational revenue is used to pay for expenses incurred during the start-up period, clearly describe in the assumptions the sources of costs and repayment terms. (2 points)

Meets 2

Meets the Criteria

C.5g Ensure revenues cover expenditures. (2 points) Meets 2 Meets the Criteria

C.5h

Be consistent with all sections of the application package. (1 point)

Approaches 0

Addresses criteria, but lacks sufficient detail in:

Ensuring all salaries and Employee Related Expenses (ERE) accounted for in the Three-Year Operational Budget are consistent with the Personnel narrative. Specifically, the costs for the ELL teacher.



C.5 Total-Meets 7

Part C: Business Plan Total-Falls Far Below0

Part C: Business Plan Total-Approaches3

Part C: Business Plan Total-Meets32

Total Scores 50

appendix a - az. appendix a_breakthrough virtual learning...education service provider, including...

Documents